"Why They Leave" Inquiries

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Nofear said:

I hold the somewhat radical opinion that I don't think God gives us any command but that we agreed to it through covenant.* God provides opportunities, behaviors, and guidance, for us to advance. When we agree to those conditions and abide by them we are blessed. Can one live the Word of Wisdom without covenant? Yes. Can one have many of the blessings of fasting but not have covenanted to obey it. Yes. Nonetheless, the fullness of the blessings are only available through covenant. See John 10:1.

God is a god of order.  It makes sense to me there is this exchange between us.  It aligns in my mind with the kinship based patron-client relationship that the Bible portrays exists between man and God, imo.

Quote

Though, the first covenant we made was pretty broad based--before coming to earth we all covenanted to obey God. Understanding the the context of this is important.

I believe God let us know in detail what we could expect and what he expected from us.  The veil has removed much of the awareness of those details and covenant, but I believe that knowledge and the covenant itself, our commitment with God is embedded in our soul, functioning similar to the Light of Christ.  One of the reasons “Be still and know that I am God” makes sense to me (when we manage to quiet the noise—not always possible unfortunately—we may grow in internal awareness and be able to connect in stronger ways with that awareness of who God is to us, though there’s so much noise internally as well, so being still is not just removing oneself from the external chaos).

Edited Wednesday at 05:31 PM by Calm

[longview]

On 6/16/2026 at 11:44 AM, Calm said:

There are other parts that if followed like a how to book of obedience would lead to disaster imo.  Jephthah is not an example of commitment to covenant making I think we should be modeling (and it’s jaw dropping for me to see him pointed to in a church lesson as such without any warning attached).

Just because the Lord used him to serve as a "judge" to lead his people to victory over Ammon does NOT justify his foolish vow to "sacrifice" whatsoever should come forth in front of his house. That is NOT a covenant. God does NOT give covenants involving human sacrifice. (test of Abraham and Isaac notwithstanding).

On 6/16/2026 at 11:44 AM, Calm said:

Do you believe we should be so committed to any covenant we make with the Lord, personal or public, that we will harm others or ourselves to fill them?  That we should never question if our covenants are actually what God wants us to do?

The Law of Moses already prohibited human sacrifice. When Jephthah came home he could have sacrificed any animal. When he saw his daughter, he should have considered himself OFF the hook for making an animal sacrifice. He did NOT need to consider himself obligated to sacrifice his own child (or any other human). His vow was "manmade" done without the acquiescence of God.

On 6/16/2026 at 11:44 AM, Calm said:

Jephthah even places the blame for the outcome of his stupid vow not on his own impulsive foolishness, but on his daughter…who obedient to her father’s desires goes to her death willingly and he follows through ‘obediently’ with his vow and sacrifices her.

This piece of history is clearly not in accordance with God's pattern of covenant making (whether doctrinal or not). When there is a covenant to be made, it is done only in accordance with God's Will. Your "whataboutism" is uncalled for. If the daughter was actually killed, then she should have known better and she should have appealed to levite priests.

[Nofear]

3 hours ago, manol said:

I have some familiarity with this perspective because it was mine for decades.  I no longer think it's all about "getting blessings".  I now think it's all about being the same manner of man or woman as Christ, and not in some far-off future existence, but right here and right now. 

I think of "getting blessings" as being more of an efficiency of gains. I don't think of it in a transactional mindset. Doing the right thing is always good. Doing the right thing with intentionality has a greater impact on one's internal change. Sometimes a proxy for that intentionality is "faith", hence scriptures like "without faith, it is impossible to please God".  I suspect with have quite a bit of overlap on this thinking. The largest point of difference would be on the role that covenant making and keeping, our hesed, plays for the right here and right now.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, longview said:

This piece of history is clearly not in accordance with God's pattern of covenant making (whether doctrinal or not). When there is a covenant to be made, it is done only in accordance with God's Will. Your "whataboutism" is uncalled for. If the daughter was actually killed, then she should have known better and she should have appealed to levite priests.

That is great and all, but such nuances as you added are neither in the Bible nor in our lessons manuals that point to Jephthah as a man of God.

Which is why we shouldn’t look at scripture like a textbook….which was the point I was making and the point your comment that added nuances, offered additional information ended up supporting.

The Church curriculum department missed a great opportunity imo here to add nuance to our instruction of scripture study.  

Edited Wednesday at 10:38 PM by Calm

[longview]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

That is great and all, but such nuances as you added are neither in the Bible nor in our lessons manuals that point to Jephthah as a man of God.

Which is why we shouldn’t look at scripture like a textbook….which was the point I was making and the point your comment that added nuances, offered additional information ended up supporting.

The Church curriculum department missed a great opportunity imo here to add nuance to our instruction of scripture study.  

Nuanced or not, the serious student of the Bible should be able to make distinctions between the fickleness of Samson, Eli, King Saul, Jephthah, etc with the "steadfastness" of God's work and doctrinal purity. Mosaic Law was given to help Hebrews progress from the "carnal commandments" to the higher law of Christ.

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, longview said:

Nuanced or not, the serious student of the Bible should be able to make distinctions between the fickleness of Samson, Eli, King Saul, Jephthah, etc with the "steadfastness" of God's work and doctrinal purity. Mosaic Law was given to help Hebrews progress from the "carnal commandments" to the higher law of Christ.

Agreed. A serious student won’t treat the Bible like a textbook, but make distinctions between the different genres, etc.

[manol]

3 hours ago, Nofear said:

I think of "getting blessings" as being more of an efficiency of gains. I don't think of it in a transactional mindset. Doing the right thing is always good. Doing the right thing with intentionality has a greater impact on one's internal change. Sometimes a proxy for that intentionality is "faith", hence scriptures like "without faith, it is impossible to please God".  I suspect with have quite a bit of overlap on this thinking. The largest point of difference would be on the role that covenant making and keeping, our hesed, plays for the right here and right now.

This is great – you're making me really ponder what it is about “making and keeping covenants” that I have a problem with.  And... it's not as simple as I thought:

I actually don't object to making and keeping promises to God. But rather, it's that I don't accept the LDS Church as the necessary intermediary in order for my promises to be valid. I subscribe to the theory that Christ employs no gatekeeper (2 Nephi 9:41).

That being said, I can also see the advantage of having a temple and a ceremony with temple clothing and words plus actions and witnesses to firmly implant the promises one makes into one's mind.

And I like the idea of joining in a prayer circle. In fact earlier today I called up a temple and put someone's name on the prayer roll.  

Like @Rain, I do not see myself as rejecting God. But I understand and don't take it personally if you do; I probably would have when I was more or less in your shoes.

By the way, I think "hesed" is a really on-point word in this context.  Good call!

Edited Wednesday at 11:36 PM by manol

[MrShorty]

On 6/16/2026 at 4:34 PM, smac97 said:

Does viewing the young man's behavior as wrong or sinful amount to rejecting item 2?  Or can they view it that way and still affirm item 2?

Both and... When I look at LDS and Biblical history, I see the people of God, following their prophet leaders, actively endorsing and promoting slavery and racial segregation. Not merely accidentally giving the impression that they aren't completely opposed to these practices, but active endorsement and promotion. When I see these issues discussed by devout LDS, the general consensus seems to be that God will know how to redeem these people in/from these sins. I figure that, if God can redeem people who actively promoted slavery, God also knows how to redeem people who endorse violating the word of wisdom or the law of chastity. That I think is the biggest part of the tension around your second statement -- just how far does God's mercy and grace and forgiveness and redemption go? I think, for devout LDS, it is sometimes hard to accept that God actually knows how to redeem sinful people. We cannot look past Alma's declaration that God cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance, so we don't really believe your second statement. We give lip service to it, but, when the rubber hits the road, we don't trust that God can redeem "those people."

On 6/16/2026 at 4:34 PM, smac97 said:

Does that perspective mitigate, in your view, our obligation to repent in this life?

On 6/16/2026 at 4:34 PM, smac97 said:

But is it possible that this concept can be misconstrued as an excuse to disobey the commandments, not repent, etc.?

I think it does. I think that "hopeful universalism" reduces our obligation to repent at some level. I can acknowledge that there is a lot of unresolved tension here, but, at some level, it leaves open the very real possibility that God will redeem people who don't repent in this life. As I noted above, our history contains plenty of examples of people who have not repented (in this life) of sins that are about the worst the 21st century mind conceives of, and, yet, we tend to also insist that God has the means to redeem even them. If we really believe that God can redeem the ancients in spite of their misconstrual of sins, then I think God can redeem us when we misconstrue God's call to repentance in our day.

I understand that there is a real tension here. With two years to prepare, is there anyone in church curriculum or in the podcast universe around CFM that wants to prepare a lesson on Alma 45 that does a real deep dive into what Alma is really saying about God being unable to look upon sin with any allowance, when scripture and history are full of examples where God commands, endorses, or even turns a blind eye to sin?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

We give lip service to it, but, when the rubber hits the road, we don't trust that God can redeem "those people."

What is odd to me is that we believe he can redeem them in mortality; after all he redeemed Alma the Younger who was probably taught the gospel and possibly even lived it when he was younger, but for whatever reason, then became someone who persecuted the Saints.  Likely an apostate then, or how we would define one if in the modern Church.  A child of one of our prophets who became an antimormon and not just any antimormon, but one of the worst kinds apparently.

We have an extraordinary description of his redemption…not triggered by his own repentance even, but by the faith and prayers of his father.

Yet for children of modern Saints we can’t see the same thing happening just because they died before they get the angel experience?  
 

Quote

Now the sons of Mosiah were numbered among the unbelievers; and also one of the sons of Alma was numbered among them, he being called Alma, after his father; nevertheless, he became a very wicked and an idolatrous man. And he was a man of many words, and did speak much flattery to the people; therefore he led many of the people to do after the manner of his iniquities.

9 And he became a great hinderment to the prosperity of the church of God; stealing away the hearts of the people; causing much dissension among the people; giving a chance for the enemy of God to exercise his power over them.

10 And now it came to pass that while he was going about to destroy the church of God, for he did go about secretly with the sons of Mosiah seeking to destroy the church, and to lead astray the people of the Lord, contrary to the commandments of God, or even the king—

11 And as I said unto you, as they were going about rebellingagainst God, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto them; and he descended as it were in a cloud; and he spake as it were with a voice of thunder, which caused the earth to shake upon which they stood;

12 And so great was their astonishment, that they fell to the earth, and understood not the words which he spake unto them.

 

Edited Thursday at 01:34 AM by Calm

[Calm]

On 6/16/2026 at 4:34 PM, smac97 said:

Wow.  That's way out of line. 

I was taught in church when young they were destined for the terrestrial kingdom at best.  In church lessons.  They were defined as those who were not valiant.  Sunday School and seminary. (My parents had much fuzzier lines drawn, left it up to God, but I was too shy to debate back then, so I don’t know if they were actually more nuanced in some cases.)

Quote

71 And again, we saw the terrestrial world, and behold and lo, these are they who are of the terrestrial, whose glory differs from that of the church of the Firstborn who have received the fulness of the Father, even as that of the moondiffers from the sun in the firmament.

72 Behold, these are they who died without law;

73 And also they who are the spirits of men kept in prison, whom the Son visited, and preached the gospel unto them, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh;

74 Who received not the testimony of Jesus in the flesh, but afterwards received it.

75 These are they who are honorable men of the earth, who were blinded by the craftiness of men.

76 These are they who receive of his glory, but not of his fulness.

77 These are they who receive of the presence of the Son, but not of the fulness of the Father.

78 Wherefore, they are bodies terrestrial, and not bodies celestial, and differ in glory as the moon differs from the sun.

79 These are they who are not valiant in the testimony of Jesus; wherefore, they obtain not the crown over the kingdom of our God.

There was also debate over what was meant by died without law and if that meant never receiving the Gospel, never being baptized (though most said they had to be exposed to it and reject it, but that might be as little as not being interested when missionaries came to the door).

There are good reasons why some LDS parents were heartbroken, even panicked, over kids leaving the Church, being “wayward” back then, imo.

Edited Thursday at 01:47 AM by Calm

[MustardSeed]

41 minutes ago, Calm said:

I was taught in church when young they were destined for the terrestrial kingdom at best.  In church lessons.  They were defined as those who were not valiant.  Sunday School and seminary. (My parents had much fuzzier lines drawn, left it up to God, but I was too shy to debate back then, so I don’t know if they were actually more nuanced in some cases.)

There was also debate over what was meant by died without law and if that meant never receiving the Gospel, never being baptized (though most said they had to be exposed to it and reject it, but that might be as little as not being interested when missionaries came to the door).

There are good reasons why some LDS parents were heartbroken, even panicked, over kids leaving the Church, being “wayward” back then, imo.

Still are, from my experience 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

Still are, from my experience 

I don’t actually disagree with Elder McConkie when he says this:

Quote

Those who have a fair and just opportunity to accept the gospel in this life and who do not do it, but who then do accept it when they hear it in the spirit world will go not to the celestial, but to the terrestrial kingdom.

I just don’t think it needs to be taught because I have a difficult time comprehending what could possibly be a fair and just opportunity given mortal conditions, especially due to the limits of communication and the massive dependence of our thoughts and feelings on biology.

And that does mean D&C 76 is confusing to me.  Many interpret that to say those who Noah preached to had a just and fair opportunity even though it sounds to me that they never got baptized and had a chance to live the Gospel.*** Given the conditions back then that often get described as justification for God destroying all of mankind save a few (they could no longer progress they were so mired in sin and corruption, repentance would not be possible in that state…or so I have heard), how would that be just?  Isn’t it like teaching someone math who has a mental block against it and thinking they should have been able to get A+ in class just from the teaching?  Without working with them to remove the block?

***Elder McConkie’s quote has that in it:

Quote

Those who have a fair and just opportunity to accept the gospel in this life and who do not do it, but who then do accept it when they hear it in the spirit world will go not to the celestial, but to the terrestrial kingdom. This includes those to whom Noah preached. "These are they who are the spirits of men kept in prison, whom the Son visited, and preached the gospel unto them, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh; Who received not the testimony of Jesus in the flesh, but afterwards received it." (D. & C. 76:72-74.)

 

Edited Thursday at 03:27 AM by Calm

[longview]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Agreed. A serious student won’t treat the Bible like a textbook, but make distinctions between the different genres, etc.

You can't squirm out this. There are many things in the Bible that ARE textbook.

[manol]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

What is odd to me is that we believe he can redeem them in mortality; after all he redeemed Alma the Younger who was probably taught the gospel and possibly even lived it when he was younger, but for whatever reason, then became someone who persecuted the Saints.  Likely an apostate then, or how we would define one if in the modern Church.  A child of one of our prophets who became an antimormon and not just any antimormon, but one of the worst kinds apparently.

We have an extraordinary description of his redemption…not triggered by his own repentance even, but by the faith and prayers of his father.

Yet for children of modern Saints we can’t see the same thing happening just because they died before they get the angel experience? 

YES!!

If "God is no respecter of persons", and if "all are alike unto God", then Alma the Younger did not get a freebie that the rest of us can only envy.  Likewise the woman caught in the act of adultery - she didn't get a lucky freebie for being in the right place at the right time. 

I wouldn't be surprised if the Good Shepherd has work-arounds none of us have even imagined.  Let me toss out an example:  For eighteen hundred years, far as I can tell (and I'm NOT a scholar), the Christian world did not have a strong doctrinal work-around for good people who died without baptism.  Then along comes Joseph Smith and Section 128 of the D&C, and BOOM we have proxy baptism for the dead, AND even a scripture in the New Testament that mentions it! 

What is Christ's work and glory? (Moses 1:39)

Will he succeed? (D&C 3:1)

[Calm]

42 minutes ago, longview said:

There are many things in the Bible that ARE textbook.

But the Bible itself, can you be safe spiritually by treating the entirety as textbook Word of God, no explanations needed, just straightforward formulas for behaviour….a+b=c?

Edited Thursday at 03:29 AM by Calm

[manol]

3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

With two years to prepare, is there anyone in church curriculum or in the podcast universe around CFM that wants to prepare a lesson on Alma 45 that does a real deep dive into what Alma is really saying about God being unable to look upon sin with any allowance...

I'll take a shot at it:

We don't get to bring our sins with us.  We have to leave them behind.  It is the sins that are excluded, not the reformed sinners. 

We have to let go of our anger, our addictions, our grudges, our judgments, our withholding of love, our withholding of forgiveness, our pride, our fear, our lies, our hatred of ourselves and/or others, our looking down on ourselves and/or others, our thoughts of retribution, our every choosing of darkness over light. 

We don't get to take our garbage with us. 

But we... when we have ceased to value the valueless, when we have been purified of everything that is not who and what we really are... we are welcome.

In my opinion. 

Edited Thursday at 04:06 AM by manol

[Calm]

1 hour ago, longview said:

You can't squirm out this. There are many things in the Bible that ARE textbook.

Who is squirming?  What you have said in your more recent posts aligns fine with what I have said from the beginning.  
 

Quote

There are parts of the scriptures I find to be wonderful examples of how we should live our best lives (the parables of Jesus, instructions to care for those in need, the poor, love and forgive our enemies).

There are other parts that if followed like a how to book of obedience would lead to disaster imo. 

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, manol said:

We don't get to bring our sins with us.  We have to leave them behind.  It is the sins that are excluded, not the reformed sinners. 

What purpose would there be to suffering for our sins, paying the debt by ourselves or Christ so to speak (I believe ‘paying our debt’ is an inaccurate shorthand of a redemptive relationship that is currently beyond our understanding) if we continued to commit them throughout eternity?

[manol]

31 minutes ago, Calm said:

What purpose would there be to suffering for our sins, paying the debt by ourselves or Christ so to speak (I believe ‘paying our debt’ is an inaccurate shorthand of a redemptive relationship that is currently beyond our understanding) if we continued to commit them throughout eternity?

And... imo...

Maybe it's less about punishment for our mistakes, and more about learning from our mistakes, than we have come to expect after a lifetime of trying to perceive the Divine through fear-tainted lenses.

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, manol said:

And... imo...

Maybe it's less about punishment for our mistakes, and more about learning from our mistakes, than we have come to expect after a lifetime of trying to perceive the Divine through fear-tainted lenses.

How would an infinite loving being, who embodies not only justice, but mercy benefit from punishing other beings that are so much less than him in knowledge and power?  

[The Nehor]

11 hours ago, longview said:

Just because the Lord used him to serve as a "judge" to lead his people to victory over Ammon does NOT justify his foolish vow to "sacrifice" whatsoever should come forth in front of his house. That is NOT a covenant. God does NOT give covenants involving human sacrifice. (test of Abraham and Isaac notwithstanding).

The Law of Moses already prohibited human sacrifice. When Jephthah came home he could have sacrificed any animal. When he saw his daughter, he should have considered himself OFF the hook for making an animal sacrifice. He did NOT need to consider himself obligated to sacrifice his own child (or any other human). His vow was "manmade" done without the acquiescence of God.

This piece of history is clearly not in accordance with God's pattern of covenant making (whether doctrinal or not). When there is a covenant to be made, it is done only in accordance with God's Will. Your "whataboutism" is uncalled for. If the daughter was actually killed, then she should have known better and she should have appealed to levite priests.

The Torah has a command for human sacrifice of the firstborn humans but there is an escape clause to get out of it. A lot of biblical scholars see in that a strong possibility that human sacrifice was practiced and then phased out.

Then you have Jeremiah speaking on behalf of Adonai and saying that he never ever ordered human sacrifice. Why would Jeremiah be saying this if no one thought God was commanding it. Complicating the problem you can turn to Ezekiel who failed to compare notes with Jeremiah and Ezekiel says that God gave laws that ‘were not good’ to punish Israel and this is while discussing human sacrifice. Sounds like Ezekiel was trying to explain away a history of human sacrifice.

And a hearty LOL at the idea that a Jephthah’s daughter could appeal to the priests for mercy. Also, the story of Jephthah does not suggest in any way that what he did was wrong. After he sacrificed his daughter he continues to enjoy success. If the writer wanted to condemn this act he could have. He didn’t and if the story is to be taken as literal God approved of the sacrifice. That is the text. It is an uncomfortable text but insisting that we can yank it out of context and rewrite it to make that act bad is just an attempt to make the text palatable to us and not a genuine desire to understand what the author was saying.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, longview said:

You can't squirm out this. There are many things in the Bible that ARE textbook.

Its ardent establishment of slavery as a good and allowed institution?

[Navidad]

19 hours ago, 3DOP said:

(I think I should perhaps start a thread on this concept of the Divine Pedagogy. That is, the way God has chosen to enlighten His people through the centuries.)

That would be a thread on Divine Truth. Both in Greek and in Hebrew, the idea of revealing the hidden, or creating the unhidden is consistent with the respective word for truth. This continues in the lived life of every believer who focuses on truthng as a verb. Teaching and truthing may indeed be interwoven if we understand the concept of truth as being, then we understand truth as enlightenment.

[3DOP]

48 minutes ago, Navidad said:

That would be a thread on Divine Truth. Both in Greek and in Hebrew, the idea of revealing the hidden, or creating the unhidden is consistent with the respective word for truth. This continues in the lived life of every believer who focuses on truthng as a verb. Teaching and truthing may indeed be interwoven if we understand the concept of truth as being, then we understand truth as enlightenment.

Truth as being? Would that be that truth is what is, whether created or uncreated?

I think your idea might differ from an axiom I have held as a definition of truth:

"Truth is the conformity of the mind to reality."

Would you maybe prefer this:

"Enlightenment is the conformity of the mind to reality."

In my axiom, truth seems to depend on a mind. But if truth is being, or reality, or what is, then what? "What is" is "out there" with or without a conforming mind. 

Am I understanding you?

[Nofear]

14 hours ago, manol said:

This is great – you're making me really ponder what it is about “making and keeping covenants” that I have a problem with.  And... it's not as simple as I thought:

I actually don't object to making and keeping promises to God. But rather, it's that I don't accept the LDS Church as the necessary intermediary in order for my promises to be valid. I subscribe to the theory that Christ employs no gatekeeper (2 Nephi 9:41).

That being said, I can also see the advantage of having a temple and a ceremony with temple clothing and words plus actions and witnesses to firmly implant the promises one makes into one's mind.

And I like the idea of joining in a prayer circle. In fact earlier today I called up a temple and put someone's name on the prayer roll.  

Like @Rain, I do not see myself as rejecting God. But I understand and don't take it personally if you do; I probably would have when I was more or less in your shoes.

By the way, I think "hesed" is a really on-point word in this context.  Good call!

Thank you for the pleasant interaction. I don't mind push back to some of the theological ideas we have in the Church. Historically several practices clearly have been more traditional than necessary. I don't doubt but that some are still in that vein. It's also possible there are some practices that have much greater doctrinal depth than we currently realize from our limited mortal perspective and thus they are not afforded the gravitas they should hold. We try to progress in understanding the best we can.

I think there is great wisdom is Joseph Smith quote "I believe all that God ever revealed, and I never hear of a man being damned for believing too much; but they are damned for unbelief." God seems to be very much tolerant of us not understanding everything and even being silly in some of our ideas so long as we act as our Savior would have us act.